Daily reminder to stop using btrfs because it has been depre

>>61748189
No it hasn't. You're such a red hat shill, opensuse actively develops btrfs.

>>61748189
fuck off poettering

File: whatariot.jpg (54KB, 800x804px)

54KB, 800x804px

I never used it to begin with, because I don't fall for memes, especially Arch memes.
>that guy who inexplicable lost TBs of data on a stable release of the filesystem and the devs said "Uh..we dunno how it happened"

>>61748207
>>61748216
Neck yourselves. I lost 8 TB of data by using btrfs because you faggots kept saying btrfs will replace ZFS.

I guess it's a meme that Netflix uses?

>>61748298
I doubt that. If you had 8tb of data to preserve for something OH SO IMPORTANT. Why would you listen to anonymous 4chan types when I know for a fact bsd developers have said btrfs is intended to replace zfs, but isn't ready yet for all use cases.

Quit larping.

>>61748207
Red Hat is the de facto leader of Linux standards. It's very fucking likely other distro's will follow suit.

>>61748307
They probably use it for the checksumming and just use the single data mode on top of hardware raid or mdadm.

btrfs raid modes are the parts that are buggy.

>>61748383
red hat is literal cancer

>>61748402
Go away Stallman

>>61748383

which is unfortunate since they give poettering free reign to pass any responsibility of bugs off to other vendors, not that I want redhat to fail but how many years are we going to have to put up with this shit

What am I supposed to use instead?

>>61748480
FAT16 formated floppies. Doesn't really matter what you use tho. No matter how stable your filesystem is, you should always have backups. Someone once said if you don't have at least 3 copies of your data, your data does not exist.

>>61748240
>b-but Arch!
What?

>>61748402
this guys knows.

>>61748597
Of course I have backups. That's why I'm using btrfs - to capture system state in a read-only snapshot which I then copy with rsync.

Daily reminder that Reiser4 recently picked up Discard support and mirroring.

>>61748677
>using a fs that kills your wife

>>61748722
One less thing I have to do myself.

>>61748722
Open source is too powerful.

>>61748189
>All of Red Hats btrfs engineers moved to facebook.
>Decided to no longer support a technical preview for one of the fastest moving pieces of code in the Linux kernel.

OP clearly doesn't understand that not offering enterprise support is different to deprecation. Also note that Red Hat never fucking offered enterprise support for btrfs, that's always been SUSE's angle.

Fucking hell.

>>61748383
Fedora still ships btrfs. Red Hat just decided to no longer offer it as a technical preview, because their btrfs engineers all left to go to Facebook. Backporting one of the fastest moving pieces of code in Linux for an enterprise distribution with a 5 year service contract is a bit harder than just fucking compiling the code.

Distributions will still offer btrfs. SUSE will still support it in enterprise deployments. Nothing changes, Red Hat just made an economic decision.

Using it just fine on two OpenSUSE machines.
Planning on replacing /home partitions with btrfs as well(currently are XFS)

>>61748356
Why would BSD developers comment on a filesystem that isn't truly Free when they've already got ZFS?

btrfs isnt really needed anyways
becachefs is a better fs for the features entailed and we have other working filesystems for specific tasks

ext4 = stable journal
xfs = I/O performance
zfs = archival

>>61751353
It's bait.

ZFS was always the answer in unix and gifted from solaris enterprise

Maybe he means to openbsd specifically which has license conflicts.

in which its not a issue because OpenZFS is now a thing and its actually pretty stable on linux too

>>61748722
Nice meme, retard.

SUSE to become the norm enterprise distro. I don't mind.

>>61751438
zfs cannot be distributed with Linux
btrfs can

>>61748658
this guy understands the nuance of state integrity in backups

>>61748189
I remember when btrfs was the next big thing™.
So do we all just go back to using ext4?

>>61751438
>xfs = I/O performance
When would I need something like this?

>>61752387
When you're I/O bottlenecked.

>>61752537
What kind of setup would I need to achieve this

>>61748189
Works on my machine

>>61752683

Not him but in CG disk speeds are always a problem for simulations.

so what deprecates it then?

LVM2 and MD are not a valid replacement.

File: gf.jpg (47KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x500px

>>61752785
Thanks!

File: michaellarabel.jpg (15KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x220px

>>61748189
hahaha his site always sucks and has little to no info. FAKENEWS LIKE CNN

>>61748298
You can lost data with any fs if you are a dumbass.

>>61749109
BTFO

>>61748207
Literally who?